Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 12:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC84130FFB for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 05:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-gfssmgYJ78 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 05:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D677130FEA for <suit@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 05:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (216.53.143.123) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 05:27:08 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Brendan Moran' <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>, 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: suit@ietf.org
References: <238EC1AC-D898-472D-A951-2AD1438C6004@vigilsec.com> <168ED9F9-15CF-457B-850A-77196D423D08@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <168ED9F9-15CF-457B-850A-77196D423D08@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 08:29:44 -0400
Message-ID: <00a301d3fcc8$ea4733f0$bed59bd0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH+/tRipfR+pENBpwPC3qGeuzNlEwIPaeyEo+sYIPA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [216.53.143.123]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/KB6Y-KhkufXgRFWszzzCoAhSWns>
Subject: Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 12:30:08 -0000
I would assume that the key management can be localized to the installation That is the file can be signed from the manufacturer to the company and then the PSK work can be done inside of the company. Strip the COSE_Sign and switch to COSE_Mac. Given that one could have run a one time protocol to derive the update PSK, I don't see that this is going to give a significant loss of security. The main issue is that one would need to scope the use of PSKs to a small area with the SUIT manager doing the PSK computation Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Suit <suit-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brendan Moran > Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 11:24 AM > To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> > Cc: suit@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac > > This is a solution that is intended to address a segment of devices that cannot > use public-key due to code size or processing overhead, and cannot use > hash-based signatures due to data overhead. Provided that every device has > a unique PSK, COSE_Mac provides adequate security. However, it introduces > significant key management overhead. > > Thanks, > Brendan > > > On 4 Jun 2018, at 16:16, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > > > I am struggling to see a case where COSE_Mac provides acceptable > protection. With a MAC, the sender and the recipient must use the same > key. This means that any recipient can make a modification and produce a > valid MAC for the modified object. > > > > With a digital signature, the sender uses a private key, and the recipients > use a public key, so the recipients cannot produce modified objects. > > > > Why accept this possibility? > > > > Russ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Suit mailing list > > Suit@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any > other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any > medium. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > Suit mailing list > Suit@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
- [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Koen Zandberg
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Derek Atkins
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Jim Schaad